Talk:KWDP

Names removed
I have removed the names of the owners/directors at the time of the transfer on the following grounds

The two people named have no independent notability. Under WP:BLP "Privacy of personal information" / "People who are relatively unknown" / "Privacy of names" sections we lean strongly against including this kind of information - omitting it does not detract from the article. When a subject has specifically requested their name be removed, without a compelling reason to keep the name in the article we should remove it. Exxolon (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Only the user in question never actually asserted that he was the subject named, only that he had the same name. Indeed, he went out of his way to avoid saying that he is in fact this person. After creating a new account for the apparent sole purpose of repeatedly removing this information from the article without explanation, my usual generous reserves of good faith are justifiably lowered in this specific set of circumstances. Identifying the owner of the radio station, and not merely the legal fiction that holds the broadcast license, is a critical part of the station's history. - Dravecky (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just re-read WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME, I find the key passage to be "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." (emphasis mine) The owner of a radio station is clearly "directly involved" and not the tangential or unrelated figure (such as a relative) considered here. Nor is the fact of simply owning a radio station a negative part of a person's biography except through some very odd read on the term. This whole series of edits feels more like a complex social engineering experiment ("Can we get Wikipedia to delete a well-referenced fact from an article?") than anything else. - Dravecky (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I must not have picked up on that nuance. Leaving aside the motives of the user, the question then becomes "Are the names of former (ENTITY) owners appropiate to include. Founders would seem reasonable as would current owners. I'm not convinced people who owned an entity in the interim should be included unless they attracted some kind of out the ordinary attention or are notable in their own right. An entity might have a dozen successive owners. There are times when all owners are appropiate to include, but that's generally for entities of such notability that ownership of one confers de facto notability on anyone who owns it. I don't think a radio station of this type necessarily qualifies. Thoughts? Exxolon (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since most broadcast licenses are held in the name of generically named corporate shells (for example, current 'owner' KORC Radio, Inc.) and often several stations in a group will be held by individual shells but share a common owner, the name of the actual owner is a basic part of the history of any radio station. Any media coverage of a radio station will focus on the owner, not the shell, and suppressing the owner's name makes the article harder to further verify or expand. - Dravecky (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay - restore the name, with the caveat that if either person asks to be removed (and has their identity verified) this will need to be revisited. Exxolon (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly reasonable. I've restored the name and hope that the matter is now closed. - Dravecky (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I was invited here to participate. I looked everywhere, but I am feeling pretty dumb about not finding the talk page. I guess I won't make administrator anytime soon... At any rate, the statment "(it's me in case I have confused you in any way)", as I wrote to Dravecky, clearly was missed. It is me and I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can produce any doc needed. I prefer to have it examined by someone who isn't going to post my verification on wiki though. suggestions?? I again request my name be removed. Thank you. 64.0.147.226 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Me again, thought I was logged in. Please don't take what you are about to read with any particular tone. It is merely questions and statements about what we have going on here.

What I don't understand is the idea that I would protest someone with a name similar to mine. Not only did I say 'My Name', I said it was me. How that was misconstrued confuses me. And I still really don't understand why a director, even an owner, has ANY bearing on anything, except the person themselves, unless hisotrical or notable. That is still a leap for me.

Dravecky, you made this statement - "Any media coverage of a radio station will focus on the owner, not the shell, and suppressing the owner's name makes the article harder to further verify or expand."  Shouldn't this statement be backed up? This is so far from the truth. I live in the LA (#2) market and when I hear KFI (CearChannel) in the news, you know who I never hear, who owns ClearChannel. Why? Becuase unless the owner is directly related to the news item, it is completely irrelevant. And WHY would it make it harder to verify? There just seems to be some logic I am missing here.

The idea that YOU alone decide what is valid, relevant, or necessary for inclusion seems not the purpose of wikipedia. DMOZ became largely irrelevant because of the same mindset. I don't think wikipedia should be run that way. As a former DJ, Dravecky, I would think that your experience would tell you to nevermind the small stuff in radio. Out of the ~13-17000 stations out there, the majority are probably stations that never reach more than 50k population, and probably are less than 1-5K watts (depending on where on the dial and what band), and thus are nearly irrelelvant, unknown and but a spec. Baring some outstanding achievement or relevant history behind a person and the station, I honestly cannot fathom why you would go to the trouble to document wikipedia with such trivial stuff. And yet, it affects me because I am in the document, and outside of 6 people, probabaly next to no one will visit this page. UNTIL! a prospective employer googles me, which they do. And thanks to this document, my name (YES ME!) is now all over the web due to sites that scrape and copy wikipedia.

This particular station isn't even in the top 100 markets (probably not top 300), why not concentrate on those since many more peoples lives could potentialy be enriched, rather than watch the 'changing hands' nonsense that some company RELATED to the industry publishes as a (not very useful) service for SALES people in the industry.

Again, I am not trying to take any tone here, just questioning WHY this is such a hard and fast decision. Just because you did something before is never reason enough to continue it. And taking the idea that works in high profile situations (owners names of large companies) and translate that to small companies is not generally good practice journalistically or in general either in my opinion. Notable is not a position, or title in all cases. Elected official, monarch, sure. It is also a public figure. But, director of a small private company that was disclosed in federal docs (previously non indexed) and in industry pages might be good detective work, but certainly neither notable nor important.
 * Please see WP:BLPCOMPLAIN. Valfontis (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you didn't take my comment as dismissive. I honestly didn't have time to read your long posting, and the link I've provided may have something to help you if you click on it and read its contents. It will show you how to reach the "offcial" channels regarding this sort of thing, although I can't guarantee you will get an answer that you like. I originally brought the dispute on this page to others' attention, and I'll do so again if it appears it can't be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. The edit warring is what bothered me, but otherwise I haven't formed an opinion on the matter. Valfontis (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I really hope that you take something I said as constructive. Wikipedia doesn't need to document all of the minutia of the existing world, just because it can, someone else did it, or whatever reason.

Again, I see no reason for ME to be attached to this doc. It's me, my history, my reputation, my life documented in wikipedia. Please remove it. Thank you. And on behalf of all non notable humans whose real life representation you've documented without regard to their privacy, I request you remove their names where the document is not affected. Please :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsuperk (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The current license holder for KFI is "Capstar TX, LLC" while you note "when I hear KFI (ClearChannel) in the news, you know who I never hear, who owns ClearChannel." You unintentionally make my point exactly.  News coverage is about owner Clear Channel Communications and not the license-holding shell corporation.  Removing the name of the owner of a radio station does damage to the complete history of that entity. Additionally, it sets a terrible precedent for removing well-sourced neutral facts from articles. - Dravecky (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as a reminder to everyone here, the Wikimedia Foundation published some relevant advice that relates to this issue here. (See especially items #2 and 4 at the end.)
 * As for my own opinion, Mrsuper, I think your points about DMOZ are well taken, but I don't think we're very much like DMOZ in this instance. Wikipedia has had pretty extensive discussion, resulting in many carefully considered guidelines and policies relating to situations like this.
 * In my opinion, the ownership of media is a pretty major issue in society. A radio station plays a role in shaping how a community thinks. So, unlike other kinds of small businesses, I believe it is relevant and important to mention the leadership of a radio station. The reader seeking information about a station may well be interested in the (evolving) ownership, and the encyclopedia's main duty is to the reader. If there has been no scandal or news story about the owners, then simply reporting the name should be sufficient; but I don't see any good reason to eliminate it. The information was public long before Wikipedia was involved; Wikipedia has a role in how this public information is treated.
 * As for the general notability of the station, while I respect what you have to say, your assessment is at odds with longstanding decisions on what does or does not constitute notability. -Pete (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Valfontis - thank you for the clarification, I was reviewing the page.

@Dravecky, I think you missed the point. No PERSONAL names are ever mentioned when mentioning company names unless they are directly relevant. AND in most cases, I believe company names are ONLY involved when directly relevant OR when clarifying for disclosure ('this station and KFI are owned/managed by ClearChannel'). And in the wiki KFI record, I still don't see the directors, president, or document signer names listed for clear channel, someone I would believe is more notable than I.

@Peteforsyth - Thank you for your input. I agree that your point makes sense in general, media can influence lives, though, we can disagree as to the notability of this station - (about to lose its license soon probably for being off-air too long in a community that may not exist for much longer either), but let's look at a couple of things in regards to MY notability, which I believe is the issue here. If none of you have experience in the community, WHAT allows you to determine relevancy in any particular case and thus generalize that it is equal in ALL cases. My company owned the station for a bit less than a year, and visited the community for exactly 6 days during that period of time. Is that relevant? If the signature on the FCC docs was my secretary, instead of mine, would that be relevant? The name, by the way, is not necessarily the owner, it is the title and name of the signor of the FCC document. In this case, mine.


 * [Note/edit - for the record, if you check the referenced docs for the sale, you'll see some transactions are noted as 'personal representative', 'manager', 'vice president', 'trustee', 'foundation', 'clerk/director' - the signor of the docs. ]Mrsuperk (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Everybody - Let's talk consistency. I looked at nearly a dozen stations in the neighboring cities, same coverage area (much more well known stations) and ALSO a few in Eugene (a larger city in Oregon). Of those that are listed in wiki, (not all are) NONE of them mention a single personal name (a couple mentioned DJs or show hosts from nationally syndicted shows - public figures), yet company names are mentioned, and in a few cases even 'changing hands' info is there with no personal names. I hate to even mention it, because I expect now Dravecky will go and create the same problem he did with the previous owner in this KORC record, and go dig up names to try to support his case. SO I suspect, that without regard to any consideration of people, relevance, or journalism(? not nec what wiki does) Dravecky( Or someone) just plain copied and pasted a partial record (again without regard to people or consistency) and now is defending a case purely to not be wrong.

I am NOT trying to be a jerk here. The reality is that while everyone has good points, the evidence of WHY just doesn't add up. Originally, I was the only one listed in this record, as an officer of a company (where the company ownership wasn't a personal name - as was the case with the couple we sold it to). Later the people they sold it to probably added their own names as a vanity? item?? Dravecky mentioned his reason was consistency and that he got it from the records. But it wasn't until I mentioned to Dravecky that the owner of Jarvis Communications, who owned it for 10 years(!) before me, wasn't mentioned, that he looked it up and added it. Yet it was in the same referenced records all along. Seems hypocritical, sloppy and inconsistent, as well as covering ones backside.

I think I have made valid points for removal (of this trivial info to you, but major to me) - privacy of living person; personal request to have it removed; willing to verify my identity as the subject in question; removing does NOT detract from factual record; adding it does not enhance record; consistency is NOT there in relevant area of wiki topic, region, station size; not notable person in any sense.

So My request to the community is to remove my name from the record. - Please. Yes I can appeal and go to the lengths. But as a community, I hope that my evidence is persuasive enough to you. Thanks. -Kevin (by the way, my username was purely lack of creativity on my part after multiple failed attempts to find a unique username in wiki - not that I am 'super' in anyway); Mrsuperk (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kevin, I want to assure you that I understand the importance of your request, and absolutely do not think you're being a jerk. You're making strong, well substantiated points. In spite of the general concern I stated above (about media ownership), I don't have a firm position on the state of this article -- I'm still thinking it through, and your comments above are definitely helpful from my perspective. And, it's not a new concept to me; as a business owner, I have struggled with the idea of having to publish my home address when registering with the state, and the sort of consequences it might have. I don't want to imply to you that I have any kind of authority in this discussion, but as for my own opinion, I'm thinking about what you said and plan to read the article a bit more closely (and some related ones) before taking any strong position.


 * As a side point, I realized there's a better link to point you to, more specifically on the notability of radio stations (as opposed to the more general notability guideline I linked to above). You may be interested to read this: Notability (media). -Pete (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pete, Thank you. And any others, I encourage the same. As for the argument about media in general, again, I think it is a good argument in some contexts. And I'd love to have that conversation, - though once we resolve the point at hand - the reference to me being removed. But the relevant point in regards to the reference to me, is that simply knowing who owned, or even was associated with a station, IN MOST CASES, is much more phone-bookish than either interesting, useful, or 'historically important'. As for my name - I still find the reference to me NOT notable, relevant, or even useful for all the reasons given above. Can we go ahead and remove the name? The name was already removed once, until they thought I wasn't really the person. Then they said, it be revisited if I confirmed it. Thanks. K- Mrsuperk (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the edit history and the talk page discussion in more detail, I'm inclined to agree with Exxolon's interpretation of the policy relating to living people.
 * @Dravecky, your unearthing of details and construction of a narrative about the station is an admirable effort (something Mrsuperk acknowledged in an edit summary), and I can see how removing details is not something you're inclined to do. But, please reconsider your initial impression (reflected in your first comment above) -- I don't think Mrsuperk was going out of his way to avoid anything, I think he's just a little unfamiliar with how things work around here, and doing his best with an unfamiliar software platform and community. And, given that the use of his name is the entire reason he's here, it's not surprising to me that he would be a little reluctant to boldly assert who he was, before we boldly asserted that it was important to the discussion that he do so. I think we should regard all that stuff as water under the bridge. At this point, I see no reason to doubt his identity, or to doubt that he has been acting in good faith.
 * All of which leads us back to exactly the point where Dravecky and Exxalon left things on March 18. The one new observation I would add is that the source document is a simple list of business transactions. In my view, that speaks to the significance of the transaction; if there was a newspaper article describing the transaction, giving background info and identifying some newsworthy angle, I don't think we'd have any choice but to include the name. But in the absence of that, I would suggest that at this point, we should simply remove this one name per WP:BLP, and move on. If the reader needs that level of detail, he/she can go to the source document; this is common practice (using an encyclopedia for an overview, and going to source documents for a higher level of detail). -Pete (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your note about the dryness of some of the station history is well taken and I've used the online archives of the two newspapers that serve the station's coverage area to expand and enhance the article. In doing so, I'm struck by just how much the local coverage focuses on the owners of the station, their personalities, and their families. (For the sake of convenience, I've included a few examples here.) Unfortunately, I don't have better access to hard copies of local newspapers and the online archives only go back a few years, not including the period where Kevin S. owned the station, but given the focus, depth, and consistency of these articles, I'd be shocked if he was not the subject of similar coverage when he was the owner. I'm hopeful that FUTON bias would not be used to justify removing key facts from an article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Pete, thank you for recognizing my intent is in good faith and that, yes, I obviously am having some confusion with the process. @Dravecky, you've raised a good point in this instance. But let me address it further. What is missing here is closeness to the subject - or more to the point direct knowledge. This is why I think, in terms of local stations, it may be best if the local community was the sponsor(?) of the page (while of course maintaining WP standards) rather than an outsider - no offense meant. But, even then, the inclusion of names needs to be overwhelmingly 'value adding' in my opinion. But, in the case of the articles you cited above, Larry (and the newest owner), the subject of the articles, was an active member of the community seeking publicity for the station. I believe in those cases, your point is more valid. My company held the ownership in company form and requested no press - for a reason - we didn't want it. Now, there may be somewhere in archives a mention, (I honestly don't know of any) but even according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Primary_criterion (sorry couldn't make it link properly) that doesn't nec make it notable or wiki worthy : '' A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. ''. Yes I know this is regarding the station/outlet, but I believe it also carries to some degree to the contents of the article. Even *IF* I were mentioned in an article, it doesn't by default make it notable, or wiki worthy. I really think we need to take an honest look at the word notable. It is definitely NOT EQUAL to factual. Notable in my opinion means that the mention of it enhances the article/subject or makes it striking - 'It's worth noting/mentioning that...' or 'Did you know?'. Again, I could find NO other stations in the station area that had personal names of owners and even the previous owner of this station wasn't in the record until I mentioned it as a comparison. Again, I don't really care that the station is a wiki subject, but the inclusion of personal names (at all) really needs to be examined seriously. So I guess my question is - I've requested my name to be removed - so, even *if* you hunted down a record with my name in it, would that really add so much value as to make my point & request less important or less valid?? Please consider that. Pete mentioned it is apparently common to give the overview and let the source docs be used for accessing more details. That seems true to me in terms of the encyclopedic nature I am more familiar with (yes the old books) :). Thanks. Mrsuperk (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dravecky, I agree, your point is a good one. However, I don't think it's proper to base a decision on speculation that there may be offline sources that detail the former owner in greater depth. (For what it's worth, I did some searching in the Newsbank archive, which includes archives from the Oregonian, Register Guard, and Statesman Journal; his name is not in any of those.) Unless and until such sources are found, I believe the right thing to do is to remove the name. I would limit it to Kevin's name; I consider this a borderline case, and I think it's exactly the sort of borderline case that WP:BLP was designed for. In other words, it's an important factor that he is objecting; we don't have objections from the other individuals mentioned. -Pete (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interest of reducing drama, I've removed Kevin's name from the article. I'd expect most coverage of KORC to be in the Newport News Times and the South Lincoln County News, truly local news sources, rather than in Oregon's "big city" papers, but in the absence of direct evidence of coverage of Kevin specifically your point about speculation is well taken. In general, however, please note that the coverage in media of this radio station focused on the human owners, not the shell corporation, and attributed ownership of other radio stations to them as people, not the legal fictions (KORC Radio, Inc., and Harney County Radio, LLC) they established. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally agree about NNT and SLCN being more likely sources..I just don't have any ability to search them, and did the best I could with the database I can access. -Pete (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dravecky. In terms of 'legal fiction' I think what you are doing to the article is exactly that in some cases and it is suspect and not accurate. For education, a corporation is regarded legally as an individual like you and any other person. A couple of the changes you have made to the article have now become legal fiction. The current owner of the station is a corporation, not individuals. The person in the articles is acting as spokesperson for the corporation. In human terms, sometimes people overlook the legal entity as ego, short-cut, or relationships. But it doesn't change the legal status. If KORC, Inc is sold, it still is the registered owner of KORC, the owner of the station doesn't actually change. This is how corporations work. The FCC doesn't allow separate ownership for station and license, either, as you have tried to make it appear in your effort to twist the record. A few of your edits need to be corrected. 64.0.147.226 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "But it doesn't change the legal status". I would suggest reading about Piercing the corporate veil, as yes, treating your limited liability entity as an alter ego can actually cause problems as to the main purpose of establishing a business organization, that being limited liability. And though it is often said that a corporation is treated as an individual, it is simply not entirely true, as can be verified by looking at income tax rates for example, or perhaps see how a corporation can sign-off on an affidavit or any other document - and not have an officer sign off. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Aboutmovies. As Pete mentioned, I appreciate the main problem has been resolved. But in terms of the article you referenced, piecing relates in terms of the court room and IRS. Wiki is neither. In this case, radio ownership held in corporation means a corporation owns it - period. If the corporation is notable (as is ClearChannel), then perhaps an article is nec for the corporation. To make any claim that individuals are notable, purely as shareholders, is false - period. The person must be notable on their own. To make a cliam that all corporations are shells regardless of any real intent of the ownership/shareholders is blatantly false. The article has now become more of a dosier, than a wiki entry. Its unfortunate so much effort went into this page when the station is disassembled and silent, likely never to return. I think Dravecky in general has done great work researching - and I am serious. I just believe it is crossing the line changing legal ownership to 'make a point'. It leads to a bad precedent which goes nowhere good. Privacy in this world of stolen identities is an important issue. Pete's description of using the record as a guide makes perfect sense in an encyclopedic way. Including personal names, especially of non-notable persons, seems counter to what I am learning that wiki is all about. My opinion. The problem I needed resolved is resolved. But, I think it would be great if the wiki community took on the precedent of 'calling out' non-notable persons/shareholders (regardless of availability in any public records) in a serious way. I think it is a serious privacy issue. Remember, there are many records avail today that no one knew would be online and many of those sources are bordering on/or are definitely crossing the line. I think continuing the practice in wiki cheapens this site/service. Again, my opinion. Perhaps someone out there more familiar with the whole process can lead that. I think people and privacy are more important than a free online encyclopedia. Mrsuperk (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we've reached a solution to the issue at hand that we can all live with, the initial concern has been addressed. It seems to me we might all be better off pausing to appreciate that for a bit, and not jumping in immediately to additional contentious issues -- no? Maybe I'm just speaking for myself here. I think I'll be moving on from this discussion, at least for a while; there are other articles I'd prefer to work on. -Pete (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)